Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coredump" data-source="post: 2676307" data-attributes="member: 6939">Yes, they set their own definition, and here it is:Now, you want to disregard what WoTC has said.Let me expand upon this. The FAQ is a list of questions. They include questions over a lot of topics. Do they include questions about *all* topics? No, they do *not* include questions that deal with items that have been covered in the errata. No where does it state, or imply, that rule changes are part of the domain of the FAQ. All it says is that it will not talk about stuff that has been covered in the errata. IOW, you will not see a FAQ question about "Hey, why are there two different CR's for an Ogre?" Because the 'FAQ's do not cover errata found in the errata documents.'Besides, you are hinging everything on a parenthetical statement. If a FAQ were supposed to be changing rules, wouldn't that be a major part of its description??First:  I disagree that as errata. No rules were changed. There was nothing RAW that said that prestige classes counted for multi-classing penalties. Now, it *is* a rule change to allow sheathing a sword to become a free action while moving.Second: So what? Lets say that somewhere the FAQ does make a statement, and the rules do change to reflect that. So what? That does not make the FAQ a *reliable* place for errata or rule changes. Since, it has also been shown, that the FAQ has made 'changes' that have *not* become part of the rules. A stopped clock is right twice a day, that does *not* make it reliable for seeing what time it is.Further:  Now that I have spent more time looking at the FAQ, it is even worse. The Sage *does* call out when he is quoting or interpreting the rules. The problem is that he isn't even consistent in that. It is a hodge-podge of sometime clear sometimes messed-up rulings that are sometimes labled and sometimes not. I feel pretty supported that the don't even know all the times that they are trying to 'change' the rules.</blockquote>

Verification